Real judgements, distilled
Court judgements broken down into the case type, how the decision played out, and the lesson worth remembering, with the full judgement available as a PDF.
Civil Appeal · 2026 INSC 1094
An older qualification must still satisfy the eligibility rules governing the appointment sought. Here, the certificate's early date did not secure reinstatement, and rejection of eligibility should not be confused with a conclusive finding that the certificate was forged.
Civil Appeal · 2026 INSC 1095
A party benefiting from a conditional stay must meet its deposit requirement or face enforcement. The additional ₹15 crore deposit secures the pending dispute; it does not settle the land's final compensation or amount to an immediate payment to the landowners.
Criminal Appeal · 2026 INSC 1093
An alleged attempt to kill does not become a lesser offence simply because the victim avoided a fatal injury. Restoring this charge means the accusation must be tried; it does not establish that the accused is guilty.
Civil Appeal · 2026 INSC 1090
For the assessment in this case, assistance reducing ordinary manufacturing costs was taxable even though the government wanted to encourage industry. The purpose and actual operation of the particular subsidy mattered more than its general development label.
Criminal Appeal · 2026 INSC 1091
Proof that someone caused a serious injury does not by itself prove the additional ingredients of robbery. A court can substitute a lesser offence supported by the evidence; the sentencing reduction here depended on Appa's particular circumstances.
Special Leave Petition (Civil) · 2026 INSC 1092
Someone challenging an election must ensure that the personal-presentation requirement is met and can be proved. Merely entering the court building does not establish compliance, and a filing defect can end the challenge before the election allegations are examined.
Civil Appeal · 2026 INSC 1088
An employee who retires on 30 June may be entitled to the increment that falls due on 1 July after completing a year of service. Authorities that delay paying the amounts due must pay interest after the deadline set by the court.
Civil Appeal · 2026 INSC 1089
Recruitment must follow the qualifications stated in the advertisement and the governing Recruitment Rules. A court will not override a merit-based eligibility decision made under those rules merely because the candidate concerned was higher in the written test.
Writ Petition (Criminal) · 2026:DHC:8797
A person who occupied property only because of employment has no independent right to remain once the employment and decree end. Even when a petition fails, courts can make practical arrangements to let a person recover personal belongings.
14543 more judgements for members
You're seeing the newest cases. Log in — it's free — to keep scrolling, search by name or judge, and filter by court or legal area.
Log in to see moreThis is a batch judgment covering multiple connected appeals filed by the Steel Authority of India (SAIL)/Bokaro Steel Plant against retired employees, including the case of Sada Nand Singh (S.L.P. (C) Diary No. 33516 of 2024), which is expressly listed among the batch of matters decided. The dispute centred on retired employees who did not vacate their allotted staff quarters after retirement and whose gratuity was withheld by SAIL as security/penal rent under the SAIL Gratuity Rules, 1978. Lower court and tribunal rulings had gone back and forth on whether SAIL could adjust penal rent against gratuity and whether interest was payable on the withheld amount, leading SAIL to appeal to the Supreme Court.
The Court held that the obligations were mutual and reciprocal: an ex-employee must vacate and surrender the staff quarters, and only then is the management obligated to release the gratuity after permissible deductions; neither obligation is enforceable in isolation. It ruled that no interest is payable on gratuity withheld during unauthorised occupation (per Rule 3.2.1(c) of the Gratuity Rules), since employees had voluntarily consented to this withholding as security and could not "approbate and reprobate." As an equitable measure specific to this batch, the Court fixed a reasonable penal rent of Rs. 1,000 per month (rather than the full contractual penal rent) to balance SAIL's recovery interest against the ex-employees' interest in retaining part of their gratuity, giving both sides four weeks to complete the reciprocal obligations of payment and vacating possession. The appeals were allowed on these terms, expressly stated not to be a precedent for other SAIL gratuity matters.
Retirement benefits like gratuity can be lawfully withheld as security when an employee has voluntarily agreed to that arrangement (e.g., for retaining employer-provided housing beyond the permitted period), but courts can still step in to fix an equitable, proportionate penal amount rather than allow the full contractual penalty to wipe out a retiree's gratuity entirely.
